Siachen News & Discussion

[Vipul]

Having session to consume chai, biskoot and samosa's is fine.The danger is if it is led or directed by a delusional and impractical fool who seeks personal glory or even worse is a self-hating and self-flagellating WKK. Shitistani's have nothing to loose and have to only persue Taqiyya so many times before they get lucky and someone oblige's them.

[rohitvats]

Well, IMO, the Pakistan volte-face on the Sir Creek issue - after the signing of documents by both the parties is proof enough that no agreement with Pakistan - unless enforced with force of arms - is worth the paper it is written on. Let us stop this nonsense of CBM - it is chutiyapant* of the highest order. IMO, the biggest stupidity of it all is that the victim of incessant assaults needs to give concessions to build "CBM" with the attacker!!!! The think there has been enough debate on this nonsense...let us not waste any more time on it.

[ManuT]

ShauryaT ji

What I have realised is that after the genocide of the Jews in WWII, genocide as done by Pakistani Army in Bangladesh (or in Rwanda or Darfur) are not called out because, calling it, binds the torch bearing states do to stop it (otherwise history is not kind to them).

So, phrases like 'bordering on genocide' or 'genocide in parts' or other fluff have been invented since.

Even with the Genocide in progress, Pakistanis (instead of choosing other saner options) with a racial superiority of 1:10 decided to launch "Op Changez Khan", when such an operation was beyond them.

I don't know if I would want to go with the narratives that are born out of such hare brained Changezi assessments which led to the conflict.

I see this more of a problem

If you deem the first bullet fired as "initiated" then you are correct. However, I was not using that word in that sense.

If given enough space, you will 'buy' that India's position was somewhat morally unsound in 1971, when really it was not, and make it appear as if TSP had a case, really when the Western World's opinion was wrong and a prisoner to the mindset of Cold War (a mindset from which Pakistan greatly profited, since its birth).

Anyways, if I continue from that POV, the next 'leap of faith' would be, hence, India's involvement in Bangladesh == Pakistan's involvement in Cashmere, that is India's arming of Mukti Bahini in 1971 justifies Pakistan's raising of Kabayalees in 1947, and 1965, and 1990s!

No doubt, Pakis will tell you India is doing the same in cashmere, but IA must really be pathetic at that because even after 22+years (or even 65 years), the 'score' hasn't even come close to what the Pakistani Army did in 1971, in that year alone.

Now since Siachen is also a part of Cashmere and is 'disputed', Siachen can be tagged as 'disputed' too (glossing over agreements of 1949, 1972)

Since Siachen is disputed, the next one will be, what India did in Siachen == TSP did in Kargil.

Clearly, this is nonsense as almost each of these situations are different.

The true fact is, every war between the 2 countries were started by Pakistan.

[ManuT]

ShauryaT ji

They provoke because it is only through provoking India they keep themselves in business and the threat alive. They see Kashmir as an unresolved issue of partition based on the communal principle, and see Indian hold on it as a sheer act of force without moral conviction or right. The provocation in their mind is justified due to this unfinished agenda, as they see it

Why again buy the communal angle of Cashmere dispute from TSP?
India has no obligation to conform to TSP vision of what India should be.

Shiv ji had asked the question on another thread.

How does a country based on live and let live and dharmic universalism respond to religious war?

and I'll answer it here (will x post it back to maintain continuity)

1. Call it correctly as being under attack of a religious war.
2. Fight without wearing the blinkers of bigotry and hate of your own.

This is why TSP is doomed, cannot take its blinkers off, only miscule minority left to give it that gyan.

The Islamic Republic after turning into TSP, is moving in the direction of turning into Emiraat of Pakistan.
If shocked TSPians think the choice is between Islamic Republic of Jinnah's dream or Emiraat of Pakistan then the answer is NEITHER, only Unislamic Republic(s) of Pakistan has/have a chance.

[ManuT]

ShauryaT ji

I do realise you are getting a disproportionate amount of fan mail, so no rush.

I really have no problem with you having a differring or a minority view on an issue. Everyone ends up there once in a while.

I am only pointing where the differences might lie. I can live with them.

Correct me if I am worng, one needs to have the correct narrative to arrive at the correct perspective, which should work towards solutions. Otherwise, jana tha japaan, pahuch gaye cheen, samajh gaye na....

[SSridhar]

Having session to consume chai, biskoot and samosa's is fine.The danger is if it is led or directed by a delusional and impractical fool who seeks personal glory or even worse is a self-hating and self-flagellating WKK. Shitistani's have nothing to loose and have to only persue Taqiyya so many times before they get lucky and someone oblige's them.

Vipul, I agree. There is nothing left for us to 'understand the current Paki thinking' on any issue by holding talks with them. We know the mendacious Pakistani behaviour; in fact, the whole world knows it now. Nothing that a Pakistani says in these 'samosa-biskoot-chai' session matters because it will be just a matter of time before they resile from that position and project an alternate one. The Pakistanis are not conducting talks to resolve the issues. Pakistanis conduct talks for two reasons only: one, to wear down the other side who could in frustration concede to Pakistani demand(s), and two, to fend off tough demands from the other side as long as possible hoping that somehow a favourable situation might develop for it later (as it happened in 1971, 1979, 2001). Apparently, GoI is not entirely aware of the danger of falling prey to this Pakistani drama, as it very nearly seems to have happened in c. 1992 with regard to Siachen. I also do not understand why we should maintain a facade of talking to Pakistan to hoodwink the 'international community'. There is zilch they can do if we choose to adopt a tougher line of not talking to Pakistan unless it delivers on Indian demands such as Indian fugitives in Pakistan or prosecuting the 26/11 terrorists etc. I can understand the interminable Swaran Singh-ZAB talks but there is no need for present-day India to indulge in such polemics. A confident & capable India should demonstrate its resolve resolutely.

[Aditya_V]

The PA needs to be in constant conflict with India to justify its hold over the country. If Kashmir is "solved" they will simply point to something else. Civil society in Pakistan after 60 years is still splintered and relatively weak and Islamic fundamentalism has consumed the country. Coupled with the 2014 pullout from Afghanistan, the Taliban will take aim at India. Instead of giving them an easy avenue for entry into the country through Kashmir we should be fostering closer relations with groups that oppose domination from Punjab and have been traditionally been more pluralistic in their outlook.

I have a slightly different take on this, PA represents the more Educated Literate part of Pakistani soceity which belives in the unfinished agenda after 1000 years of Islamic rule in this which is the land the land of the Kaafirs to be converted into pure land, For them the existence of the Kafir is the problem and will not stop until until atleast 95% of the Indian population has officially converted to thier sect of Islam with Rawalpindi as the Capital.

It is impossible any Indian Govt/ WKK's how much ever the cower and surrender give in to thier demands that peace can be achived with them.

[ShauryaT]

ManuT Ji: On the "initiated" aspect of 1971, I was not trying to do an equal-equal. Far from it. 1971 was a war, that TSP should take the blame for as it was thrust upon us. But, the events of Dec 3 are irrelevant, IMO. Even if we would have fired the first bullet, the responsible party was clearly TSP. My original comment of "initiated" was in context of wars, TSP planned and acted upon and in that respect, it has been all about Kashmir.

Why again buy the communal angle of Cashmere dispute from TSP?
India has no obligation to conform to TSP vision of what India should be.

On the former, Because digging our head in the sand will not make it go away? It is the way they see it, what are we going to say, no you are lying and you violated a standstill agreement and that sounds more credible after 60 years? If so, then how do we justify operation polo or the liberation of Goa? Anyways, I do not think this type of a denial is working. It only showcases our moral bankruptcy, while we do not need to be on back foot. The problem is not in Pakistan's position, it is what we choose to make our case on.

For the later, we do not have to be on a back foot by sticking to some document signed by a monarch as our only reserve. We have enough ammunition in our history to make a claim up to Afghanistan and this is where SSridhar is right, we have chosen to be a pacifist and non-revisionist state, by artificially locking ourselves down to be the inheritors of British India and all its rights and obligations. This premise needs to be rejected, if India has to be a great power based on the antecedents of a rich civilizational heritage. There is no respect for coming across as being satisfied in matters geopolitical. Great Powers do not act this way. Article 370 is a shining example of how we shoot our own foot.

The fact of the matter is, India accepts TSP, without accepting its ideological premise. i.e: it is a homeland for muslims of the sub continent. BD and 170 million IM, prove the point. The acceptance of partition was borne due to our political weakness over 100's of years, against a foreign ideology. While we can agree to let TSP live as a separate state - we shall never accept its ideological premise. In that sense, we have an inherent ideological conflict. A conflict which can only be resolved through war, in which one is comprehensively defeated or through a change or fusion of ideas, that can be achieved over time. Since there is no near term solution to this ideological divide, it is best to see what other avenues exist to co-exist with each other, without trying to resolve this ideological conflict. So, towards that, I reject the approach of resolve this ideological conflict first and only then peace is possible. As long as TSP, recognizes our right to be a state with a different ideological strand than theirs then co-existence is possible.

My irritation with the Indian stand stems from our reliance on legalese and shying away from ideals. It is because our ideals are not emphasized, we come across as being on the back foot and as avoiding issues to be solved.

On Shiv ji's question, my answer is.

The day we have a country that sufficiently believes in Sanatan Dharma, at the level of a state, the answer to the question of how it shall respond to religious war, shall be clear. Lookup our preamble, for it denotes our ideals we stand for our nation, there is nothing Dharmic derived in it. We have no choice but to strengthen ourselves first, before we take on such religious wars. Till then we can try to use the size of our body the deflect and stall. But, without the ideological underpinnings the body will fail some day, as it has in the past.

Thank you for your patience, I have probably missed responding to some of your past posts. But, am trying not to repeat myself and stick to only new points.

[bhavin]

.... If so, then how do we justify operation polo or the liberation of Goa? Anyways, I do not think this type of a denial is working. It only showcases our moral bankruptcy, while we do not need to be on back foot. The problem is not in Pakistan's position, it is what we choose to make our case on....

ShauryaTji - Operation Polo would be comparable only if PA went and 'integrated' Quetta or Rawalpindi or what have you in that moth-eaten country. Indian state did not go and invade a 3rd country but Integrated a wayward state.

Liberation of Goa would be comparable only if Indian State - to free Goa - sent terrorists to Portugal to cause mayhem continuously for 3 decades otherwise again it is not comparable as Goa was a colony of Portugal while Kashmir is not a colony but more like most favored son-in-law who gets disproportionate resources.

Neither the liberation of Goa nor the integration of Hyderabad state is in dispute where we have to justify it to anybody.

JM2C

[ShauryaT]

Neither the liberation of Goa nor the integration of Hyderabad state is in dispute where we have to justify it to anybody.

JM2C

Correct and so should be the case for Kashmir.

[Virupaksha]

Neither the liberation of Goa nor the integration of Hyderabad state is in dispute where we have to justify it to anybody.

JM2C

Correct and so should be the case for Kashmir.

So why are you asking India to vacate Kashmir if it is not in dispute (a part of it)

[Kakkaji]

I think there are parts of truth mixed with falsehoods to create this threat perception. All of PA Initiated wars have been in Kashmir only, is a fact.

Not true. Rann of Kutch is not in Kashmir.

PA has attacked India, conventionally or unconventionally, wherever and in every way where it finds India to be weak.

[Vipul]

Kakkaji how dare you expose Paki perfidy? Atleast have some regard for the TFTA efforts of its champions here. You are supposed to act like a typical SDRE and overlook the half-truths and blatant lies about PA and accept the losses caused by it as Karma onlee.

[pralay]

not related to siachin, but just posting for reference

Pak shells Poonch posts again
At least 12 Indian posts were targeted by 653 Mujahid Regiment of the Pak Rangers, who used rocket launchers, heavy machine gun and UBGL grenades, said official sources. “Pak Rangers opened fire from Daku, Battal, Roza and Pimple posts opposite KG sector,” they added. The Pakistani troops have so far violated the truce four times since June 13 resulting in killing of two soldiers Lance Naik Harvinder Singh and BSF jawan PK Mishra. Three soldiers have been injured.

ShauryaT ji,

The Birathers whom you are trying to gift stuff, don't even respect the mutually signed agreements.
Do you expect them to change drastically and suddenly after gifting them siachin?

You are worried about the living conditions of soldiers in siachin, but what about the soldiers getting injured/killed because of your birathers breaking mutually signed peace agreements?
Please ask your "messiha in power" what he is going to offer now as CBM?

PS: Snake will bite even if you call it a friend or gift him siachin.

[SSridhar]

The recent developments in Pakistan are a Godsend for most of us here in BR. At least, the visit of MMS and consequences thereof get delayed for the immediate future. Wait & Hope as the Count of Monte Cristo says.

For the Pakistanis, Allah has been singularly cruel yet again.

[chaanakya]

Another trick to mislead
Author: G Parthasarathy

Pakistan’s new-found desire to demilitarise the Siachen heights cannot be taken at face value. Moreover, it makes no sense for India to give up an advantage.

Faced with a hostile Mao-Nixon axis as tensions over Bangladesh grew in 1971, Mrs Indira Gandhi responded by concluding a treaty of “peace, friendship and cooperation” with Moscow in August 1971. The treaty, coming soon after the Sino-Soviet clashes along the Ussuri River, effectively deterred any Chinese adventurism during the Bangladesh conflict. In October 1973, Leonid Brezhnev visited India and sought support for his plans for “collective security in Asia” — a move for the containment of China. New Delhi correctly declined to endorse the Soviet proposal. Interestingly, just after Mikhail Gorbachev assumed power, the Soviets themselves moved to mend fences with China. In a world of shifting alliances,, it is only prudent for India not to get involved in current US-China rivalries, especially given the wide-ranging areas in which the US and China work together and cooperate on international security issues in the UN Security Council.

This does not mean that India should not collaborate with the US in moves which build an inclusive structure for cooperation in Asia. Balancing Chinese power requires India to build its own defence partnerships with countries surrounding China, like Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia, together with expanding defence cooperation and military exercises with the US and others. Union Minister for Defence AK Antony advocated such an approach in the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, where he spoke of the need to “avoid conflict and build consensus” on differences over the South China Sea.

If China proclaims that the Indian Ocean is not “India’s Ocean”, India and China’s other neighbours should insist that the South China Sea is not “China’s Sea” and that China must respect the principle of Freedom of Navigation, as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. Actions like building our own defence potential and expanding military cooperation with countries like Vietnam through the supply of potent weapons like Cruise missiles, send a far stronger and clearer message to China, than moves which are seen as our acting at someone else's behest.

Mr Anthony clearly spelt out his stand on handling the Siachen issue when he told Parliament that India stood by its position on the need for “authentication” of actual ground positions as an imperative first step, in any dialogue on the issue. He said, “The two sides have first to agree to authentication of respective ground positions, on the 110 kilometre of the actual Ground Position Line along the Saltoro Ridge, then delineation on map and ground and finally demarcation of the agreed border”. Cautioning against excessive optimism on an “early breakthrough” in talks with Pakistan, Mr Anthony added, “Don’t expect any dramatic results from the next round of talks. It is a complicated issue.”

Mr Anthony thus made it clear that issues regarding the extent of troop pullback, if any, could be discussed only after agreement is reached on the “authentication, delineation and demarcation” of what he told Parliament is the “agreed border”.

Following Mr Anthony’s statement in Parliament, there have been leaks of highly classified documents to a national daily, evidently from influential sources in South Block, which claim that India had virtually reached an agreement with Pakistan on withdrawing its forces to positions held during the Simla Agreement of 1972, in exchange for Pakistan marking actual ground positions in separate documents and not in the main agreement on disengagement. Let us get the record straight. I was told by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 that an official who had spoken about having reached an agreement with Pakistan on withdrawal from Siachen, had spoken out of turn, and that he could not contemplate the withdrawals being sought by Pakistan, after Indian soldiers had shed their blood to prevent a Pakistani incursion into areas we had legitimately claimed. In 1992, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao had only approved the conduct of negotiations. He had told his officials not to conclude any agreement on a withdrawal. In 1998, the NDA Government had authorised then Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar to hold talks confined to the authentication of the Line of Control. The question that arises is: Are moves being initiated to dilute Mr Anthony’s assurances in Parliament, in order to ‘manufacture’ a ‘breakthrough’ in India-Pakistan relations.

Even though the 1949 Agreement declared that beyond the Shyok River in Kargil, the Line of Control proceeds “north to the glaciers”, Pakistan depicted the LoC moving eastwards to the Karakoram Pass. This would enable a link-up between Pakistan and China north of Ladakh — a link-up that can threaten our security, especially given the existing Chinese presence in the Shaksgam Valley and also in Gilgit-Baltistan. We also cannot forget that in Kargil, Pakistan crossed a LoC that had been delineated but not demarcated, asserting that it had not violated the Simla Agreement. Moreover, the former ISI Chief, General Ziauddin, has revealed that in 1999 Pakistan asked the then Taliban ‘President’ Mullah Rabbani for 20,000-30,000 volunteers for jihad in Kashmir. Most importantly, it needs to be borne in mind that, should the Pakistanis move into positions currently held by us along the hilltops of the Saltoro Ridge, it will be impossible for us to retake these positions. Should all these facts be disregarded in the quest for an imaginary ‘breakthrough’ with Pakistan?


The motivated leaks of classified documents have interestingly come when Pakistan has launched a ‘charm offensive’, inviting selected Indian scribes and ‘bleeding hearts’ to shed tears about money ‘wasted’ in deploying soldiers in the heights of the Karakoram. This conveniently ignores the fact that it was Pakistan that modified its maps to show the LoC moving “east to the Karakoram Pass” beyond the Kargil sector and not “north to the glaciers”, as agreed to in 1949.

There are indications that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will respond positively to the invitations he has received from Pakistan’s leaders to visit that country. Exchange of visits between leaders of neighbouring countries certainly help in promoting understanding, contacts and cooperation, on a wide range of issues. But, it would be a folly to believe, as some of our perennial optimists advocate, that the Pakistan Army has had a “change of heart” and can be trusted to keep its word. This, at a time when that nation’s Army continues to arm and train the Haqqani network in Afghanistan, protects Hafiz Mohammed Saeed and his cohorts from prosecution, revives the website of the Jamaat ud-Dawa’ah and encourages its proxies in Pakistan to spew venom against India.

Well almost all points are made in this thread by members and reflected in this piece by G Parthasarathy.

[chaanakya]

Why the ice didn’t melt
Counterpoint

Dr Maleeha Lodhi (Debate) / 21 June 2012

<snip>
Pakistan’s effort to engage the other side in a discussion on environmental degradation owing to human activity on the glacier elicited no response. The Indian side declined to accept that any degradation was taking place. Consequently it was unwilling to include any reference to this issue in the joint statement or to pursue further discussions on this.

The Indian emphasis was on creating an environment of trust and confidence before trying to solve disputes. In this context the Indian delegation called for new CBMs, including visits between military institutions and exchange of military bands. The Pakistani side saw this as sidestepping the real issue.

With no progress accomplished in the thirteenth round and little prospect of overcoming this impasse, the dialogue on Siachen has increasingly become more about process than outcome.

The signal this sends is that India wants normalization of relations with Islamabad to proceed only in areas on its priority list – trade, people-to-people contact, economic and cultural ties, and not resolution of long standing disputes, which top Pakistan’s priorities.

The key question this raises is whether Pakistan-India normalisation can be sustained without solving the disputes that lie at the root of long-standing tensions? Surely a diplomatic dance around the real issues – with a focus on process not progress – can hardly establish the basis for a lasting peace.

Last line simply means that Siachen is not so important but resolution of disputes that lie at the root: Kashmir ( I suppose) All else is Maya.

[Yayavar]

The key question this raises is whether Pakistan-India normalisation can be sustained without solving the disputes that lie at the root of long-standing tensions? Surely a diplomatic dance around the real issues – with a focus on process not progress – can hardly establish the basis for a lasting peace.

Does this not mean, "So, demarcating and authenticating the line of control is not interesting. Just give us what we need "? The only resolution will be when that fissiparous state implodes due to its own contradictions across Gilgit, Baluchistan, Sindh and Punjab; and leaves the rest of the world in peace.

[chetak]

Why the ice didn’t melt
Counterpoint

Dr Maleeha Lodhi (Debate) / 21 June 2012

<snip>

The Indian emphasis was on creating an environment of trust and confidence before trying to solve disputes. In this context the Indian delegation called for new CBMs, including visits between military institutions and exchange of military bands. The Pakistani side saw this as sidestepping the real issue..[/b]

Exchange of Military Bands?? as a CBM!!

Truly inspired thinking by the Indian side.

[chaanakya]

When one has to deal with such neighbors , need to come up with creative CBMs.

OTH

Hollow words
June 21, 2012 | 8

Full of Wet dreams, falsehood and veiled threat. And a New terminology Accidental War. and a bit of reality dawning upon them : bogged down in Afgan Maelstrom.

Indian Army Chief has boasted that although India is facing a shortage of modern war weapons, it still is stronger than Pakistan or any other enemy the world over. What is worrying is his wish that India’s defence budget which was two percent of the GDP should be increased to three percent.

India’s armament programme is of serious concern not just to Pakistan but to other of its neighbours who are pushed into buying more weapons in order to keep up. The race that started with detonation of nuclear devices has ratcheted up to nuclear submarines, which are way too dangerous. These would increase the likelihood of an accidental war. A variety of missiles fitted with nuclear warheads have likewise been tested time and again. The challenges confronting South Asia, mainly poverty, hunger and militancy can best be confronted with reduced military expenditure and resolution of the outstanding conflicts. If war was the ultimate solution, both the countries would have long settled their disputes. Intransigence still remains the order of the day which keeps vitiating whatever peace or goodwill is achieved over time. Siachen talks ended without any result except for the commitment to continue the discussions. The other day, the conclusion of Sir Creek negotiations met with the same fate. The only hope was that the dialogue would be resumed somewhere in future. Pakistan, on the other hand has been bogged down in the Afghan maelstrom, which if not corrected would have the potential to rear up and spread elsewhere to South Asia and even beyond.[/color] Seen in that perspective, it is a common challenge. The volcano that the region has turned into will erupt if these disputes are left to fester indefinitely.

Now that both the countries are formidable powers, they must conduct themselves responsibly rather than threaten to nuke each other within few seconds. As Siachen, and other squabbles have shown, these are not worth the human toll that it exacts, not to mention the unbearable costs. Kashmiris will not let go of their resistance to Indian occupation and so will Pakistan, which is rightly pressing for a UN sponsored settlement. The two neighbours must in the meanwhile try not to break the momentum, however slow or tedious, of the ongoing peace talks with uncalled-for statements

[Lalmohan]

^^^ there must be an automatic-article-generator algorithm in pindi corps HQ computer centre, spits out random statements in a different order everytime... i hear that the paquis are working on the direct interface to the paqui news paper editing platforms, so that the statements can go directly into the printed article without the need for human intervention...

[Sanku]

Exchange of Military Bands?? as a CBM!!

Truly inspired thinking by the Indian side.

Some times the Indian establishment guys show just why getting into those is so hard.

[Surya]

someone visiting yehudiland must have seen the band's visit and got inspired

[Prem]

The Siachen key
This Poaq Sounds Like One of Our own RNI Media Dork

If the peace process and the diplomatic engagement between India and Pakistan have to inch forward incrementally towards reaching the pinnacle of Kashmir, then there, perhaps, is no better Confidence Building Measure (CBM) than effecting a thaw in the frosty diplomatic immobility over Siachen. Manifestly, this is easier said than done. As the June 11-12 parleys between the Defence Secretaries of the two countries held at Islamabad indicate the level of inflexibility in the Indian stance over options to bring the area to status quo ante that prevailed when the Indian army launched Operation Meghdoot to occupy the Saltoro Ridge, defining the south western limit of Siachen Glacier, has only gone up several notches. A major factor contributing to the hardening of Indian stance is an entrenched opposition by the Indian army to stymie its government’s initiatives to clinch a deal on Siachen. As is becoming evident, the Indian army has emerged as a major stakeholder in defining the parameters of the Indo-Pak dialogue process; effectively challenging the political writ of the government. ( Phoki Paki Dhamki)The AGPL delineation is unacceptable because it amounts to legitimising the Indian aggression in Siachen; an area that was left unmarked due to terrain difficulties when the UN sponsored Karachi Agreement in 1949, marked the Ceasefire Line (CFL) in Kashmir on cessation of hostilities. The terminus then was a benchmark called NJ 9842 beyond which the boundary line was not extended towards the Chinese border by military commanders of the two countries. Siachen, with its unalienable linkages with the Kashmir issue, provides an ample test case to evaluate the Indo-Pak capability in resolving their problemsbilaterally .Many apprehensions, mostly untenable, have been proffered to justify the Indian intransigence to demilitarise Siachen. A major one being that Pakistan could occupy the Saltoro ridgeline and its passes in case the glacier is demilitarised. This is hardly tenable; reflecting a fossilised Indian mindset steeped in suspicion and mistrust. Technology for monitoring troop concentrations and movements has undergone radical transformation and ironclad guarantees, including third parties’ involvement, can be incorporated in the agreement to preclude violations. Then there is the presence of the UN Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which has been mandated by the UNSC through its resolutions to monitor CFL (now called LoC) separating the two armies in Kashmir. By incorporating the available technology, they, under the authority of the UN mandate, can keep an effective watch over the glacier as the troops vacate the disputed area. Many solutions are available to resolve the embedded problems, but first India will have to let go of lame excuses that have effectively grounded all efforts to bilaterally solve major issues topped by Kashmir. Siachen can provide the key to bilaterally finding a way to clean the Augean stables of Indo-Pak disputes

[JaiS]

Perhaps we should integrate the various posts mentioned in this thread which articulate the Indian position, into a single post ( like the starting post of the TSP thread ) and it could also turn into a BR Article ? It should probably be in a Q&A format. Any volunteers ? rohitvats ?

[RoyG]

NDTV says Sarabjit to be released from prison. Have a feeling major deal with Pakistan is in the works.

[rohitvats]

Perhaps we should integrate the various posts mentioned in this thread which articulate the Indian position, into a single post ( like the starting post of the TSP thread ) and it could also turn into a BR Article ? It should probably be in a Q&A format. Any volunteers ? rohitvats ?

Sirji, terribly occupied with work and travel....not possible for next couple of weeks at least.

[ShauryaT]

SIACHEN FOLLIES - Defining Facts and Objectives

The origins, course, consequences and lines of resolution of the Siachen imbroglio have been so misunderstood, confused and even mismanaged by Indian policy makers over the years that we stand in some danger of scoring another own goal in J&K in favour of Pakistan. The singular unwillingness or inability to look at the bare facts defies understanding. How did India come to be hopelessly trapped in a web of Siachen follies? Where does responsibility lie for this inexplicable strategic slumber ?

The Way Out
The way out would therefore be quiet authentication of the AGPL, if necessary through an annexed exchange of letters. This should be combined with agreement on the only true meaning of “NJ 9842 thence north to the glaciers” leaving no room for creating any no-man’s land
and clearly marking a firm boundary running from NJ 9842 thence north to the glaciers.

Finally there should follow an understanding on converting the NJ 9842-K2-Karakoram Pass triangle into a demiltarised Third Pole International Peace Park for Glacier and World Weather Studies, hopefully with Shaksgam as a partner, to monitor climate change. Sovereignty within its own territory would remain with India and Pakistan, and with China should it join. Such an arrangement would foreclose risk of any clandestine military occupation of the vacated AGPL or adjacent Pakistani positions by anybody. None need lose face. All would gain.

[rohitvats]

^^^Here is my "Peace Park" proposal -
1.PA authenticates the AGPL.
2.IA and PA withdraw to mutually agreed locations.
3.Pakistan has no claims on Siachen.
4.We can have the nice little peace park - permission to get on Siachen given only by India.

[Mahendra]

Peace pork may be?

[eklavya]

SIACHEN FOLLIES - Defining Facts and Objectives

The origins, course, consequences and lines of resolution of the Siachen imbroglio have been so misunderstood, confused and even mismanaged by Indian policy makers over the years that we stand in some danger of scoring another own goal in J&K in favour of Pakistan. The singular unwillingness or inability to look at the bare facts defies understanding. How did India come to be hopelessly trapped in a web of Siachen follies? Where does responsibility lie for this inexplicable strategic slumber ?

The Way Out
The way out would therefore be quiet authentication of the AGPL, if necessary through an annexed exchange of letters. This should be combined with agreement on the only true meaning of “NJ 9842 thence north to the glaciers” leaving no room for creating any no-man’s land
and clearly marking a firm boundary running from NJ 9842 thence north to the glaciers.

Finally there should follow an understanding on converting the NJ 9842-K2-Karakoram Pass triangle into a demiltarised Third Pole International Peace Park for Glacier and World Weather Studies, hopefully with Shaksgam as a partner, to monitor climate change. Sovereignty within its own territory would remain with India and Pakistan, and with China should it join. Such an arrangement would foreclose risk of any clandestine military occupation of the vacated AGPL or adjacent Pakistani positions by anybody. None need lose face. All would gain.

The Defence Minister of India has stated the national position in Parliament: Authenticate, Delineate, and Demarcate the AGPL. Then we can "consider" re-deployment.

All this sentimental nonsense about "peace park" needs to stop now. General VK Singh said it very clearly that only a "fool" would be taken in by Kayani's statement. "Fool" is a polite way to put it.

[Vipul]

SDRE Indians are too smart.First they dont allow us TFTA Shitistani's to commit cartographic aggression, then they kick our asses when we are foolish enough to fight them and now after considerable investment in desi jaichand's and WKK's they are not falling into our trap of talks and CBM nonsense. Evil Bania's.

[JaiS]

Sirji, terribly occupied with work and travel....not possible for next couple of weeks at least.

No worries with regards to the timelines. It appears to me that the same questions are posted in a circular manner every once in a while, and merely having an evolving document / post which answers questions in a comprehensive manner such by yourself would save a lot of time, and would be very useful for many people.

[SSridhar]

SIACHEN FOLLIES - Defining Facts and Objectives

B.G.Varghese is a keen observer of India-Pakistan situation and he has produced an extraordinary document as cited above. But it is baffling that he makes the follwoing statements:

Nevertheless, the Kayani initiative should be pursued so that even a fleeting opportunity for peace is not lost.

India has pursued many such fleeting and not-so-fleeting opportunities and we know how they all ended up with. So, what's new ?

The way out would therefore be quiet authentication of the AGPL . . .

Why quiet ? In order not to publicize the settlement and thereby avoid embarrassing the PA ? It is such lifelines to the PA and Pakistani leaders that have come back to haunt India. BG Varghese himself has written about ZAB's reneging on the promise he made to Ms. IG at Simla and then determinedly pursuing the nuclear weapon option. There are countless other instances of Pakistani perfidy, the latest being the Sarabjit case. The PA must be pounded physically and emotionally for any misadventure and shamed. The Government of Pakistan must be shown in bad light whenever they transgress. Short of defeating that country in a war, these are the only options left. We should therefore proceed in an open manner with the AGPL so that it assures everybody involved what really happened at Saltoro.

Finally there should follow an understanding on converting the NJ 9842-K2-Karakoram Pass triangle into a demiltarised Third Pole

'Understanding' with whom ? Why should India come to an understanding with Pakistan on what it does or does not do within its own territory ? Why should we even contemplate giving up our advantage and pledge to demilitarize this area ? We may eventually do it but that is a decision we will take later after we have worked out how these areas can be secured, if at all, against surprise Pakistani-Chinese aggression surreptitiously. We do not need to foreclose our options.

None need lose face.

This is fossilized thinking. PA *MUST* lose face, as otherwise we will have this enduring hostility. Ms. IG was (ill)advised at Simla that the Simla Agreement should not end up as another Treaty of Versailles that Germany felt humiliating leading to WW II. Nothing of that generosity will work with Pakistan. We have witnessed all this since 1947. In fct, we have witnessed all this since 1930. Those who worked for the creation of Pakistan and those who rule Pakistan today have a different agenda for India than peace with us. They will use every excuse to conquer us. Everything is taqiyya and hudabaiya. We should approach Pakistan with only this in our mind. We do not need to worry about the PA losing face. Any such generosity will be most certainly mis-construed as timidity and weakness of India. Pakistan must constantly and consistently lose face.

[JE Menon]

The man was on the NSAB ... sometimes one wonders!!!

[ramana]

The man was on the NSAB ... sometimes one wonders!!!

Not really. Just because a person did well at Task A does not mean he will do well at Task B also!

BGV did a great job on the first NSAB along with KS and the rest. He also did a great job on KRC in their post Kargil ops.

[eklavya]

As far as I can tell, the avalanche did a fine job of demilitarising the Pakistani positions below the Saltoro ridge. With the Pakistani positions entombed in a snowy grave, Siachen is indeed already a peace park. The Indian Army is there to maintain the peace.

I am sure that the Indian Army would welcome morale boosting visits from scientists, film stars, journalists, Prime Minister, etc, keen to study global warming (I hear the Karakoram glaciers are growing) and breathe the peaceful air (not much of it, I understand).

[ramana]

should start a new CT that it was predator drone that triggered the avalanche@!

[ShauryaT]

The man was on the NSAB ... sometimes one wonders!!!

His position did not surprise me given his leanings. Another matter that I agree with this particular one.

[eklavya]

ShauryaT, we look forward to your summer vacation pics from your visit to the Siachen peace park.